I took another shot at designing a fixed wing. I don't have any serious plans with it yet. Just a design experiment like my last one wich turned out to be all looks and no efficiency. This one is a flying wing design. And again, I have no clue and need some expert advice. As of now it has a 2.5 meter wingspan run by a 13" pusher prop. I think that may be too small? The cutout for the motor is 40mm, I thought that may cover all the size motors that it could run on. It has an internal front mounted tilt camera similar to my quad design. The slit in the front allows a 17° tilt up and 90° tilt down. I posted lots of pics because it's kinda hard to perceive its form due to its streamlined shape. But don't let the shape fool you, it has a payload bay thats 10cm at its deepest point, 20cm wide and 45 cm long.
I'd like too add that I was inspired to go through with this by very motivating dialogue with Curt Olson who built the Resolution. Great guy, great machine!
Replies
and it looks like it should fly, your sweep and taper look well within acceptable tolerances. in fact, it looks quite a lot like a skywalker x8 or hobbyking darkwing to me... should fly very well, just make sure the cg is correct (better to be nose-heavy than tail-heavy)
Eric
Great project please continue with it. I see it has created great discussion on the post regarding design type etc. These guys obviously know way more than me regarding type layout etc. all I can add is that they are all after different requirements.
I am from the UK, we are allowed to fly under licence (if you are charging for your services as apposed to hobby flying). Check out http://eurousc.com/ which has several links to regulatory requirements for EU countries. Generaly they all operate a VLOS requirement, staying within 500m radius and 150m altitude although it does vary from country to country, no doubt when the US gets over its paranoia it will be along similair lines.
Most of the commericialy avialable UAS systems available (i.e. offering airframes as opposed to offering services) offer flying wings. Now I dont know, but from former posts I can assume that this is because of ease of operation for none skilled pilots etc. here are but three examples:
http://www.gatewing.com/ (last time I checked (2011) cost of around €50,000)
http://www.sensefly.com/ (last time I checked cost (2011)of around €14,000)
http://www.smartplanes.se/ (last time I checked (2011)cost of around €20,000)
(prices were for fully operational turn key systems and include operator trainiing (but not licencing)).
Yes I know these are all sub 2m wingspan, but you get the gist. Stay with the wing for operator/transport/user ease of operation.
You need to define your requirements for the airframe first. Project requirements, payload, flight time, etc. I dont want to put my sub $10k flash lidar camera ( http://www.advancedscientificconcepts.com/) into a $800 airframe only to have some over enthusiastic FAA official confiscate it because I was flying it 2.5km from where I launched it.
The reality is most of us are going to stay within line of sight (ish) and be carrying a pretty light camera load, with a flight time of around 60 mins. I think what you have come up with so far fits that bill, please continue.
Pete.T
What if you were to remove the engine as it is on the comp generated wing and replace it with a carbon tail boom with some sort of nice trick looking v tail and moved the prop to a position on top of the boom?
Wonder how that would perform?
For FW adepts: show me please open-class sailplane designed as FW.
The scan eagle is a flying wing design.
never make a flying wing unless there is a compelling reason that excludes a conventional layout...
the efficiency loss isn't worth it if you are concerned with endurance...
This is a really nice looking model, the latest C4D does great renders.
Love the look of the transparent wing image.
Saw a similar project on here called the Viper X-10 which also looks pretty bad ass but not quite as slick as this thing.
I think the vent for the motor and ESC cooling is a good idea.
Im in the process of designing a long range drone and am wondering why most of the designs on the market look like bricks with wings?
I have an industrial design background but no experience in aircraft design.
Personally I would have thought the best design would be a powered glider setup with a large wingspan and removable payloads that are plug and play.
Image 01.jpg
Image 02.png
Image 04.tiff
Got some updates :-) for one, YES this is now an official project and this bird WILL fly (i hope) one day :-P
I have made a decision abou the wingspan. It is now 2.35 meters. All my math tells me that plays the best motor/battery/weight symphony for up to 90min flights. I've also solved my ugly control horn problem, the pic should be self explanatory. It will need some hands on experimentation to perfect but it's been done before and will work.
I've split the bird in three pieces and started on the wing structure. I will need to do more research and get some consulting concerning best practices for that though. So consider the wing rib structure very beta.
I've also added a duct to cool the ESC, which is probably silly so don't hesitate to throw tomatoes. But I hope its useful...
Last but not least the payload and motor bay without covering. And some more SFW nakedness.
As with my quad project, I'm always looking for serious collaboration, so if you got skills, money or both, and feel this is worth getting involved with, please hit me up. But please don't bore me, I'm not a kid, no offense, I just mean ... please be serious... and nice ... :-P
I agree with Vladimir,
Take it one step at at a time, start simple and build on your success.
Build a 2/3 scale in foam to work out the balance and the bugs, then when you have it right go for the big one. you can save yourself an expensive mistake.
control horns on the top are a must.
calculate the COG then go + 5 to10% further forward for first flights the short nose can work well, my latest wing has no nose.
start with a sweep angle of approx 20 degrees.
Twist, make the control surface wider at the tip than the root and your twist is built in and adjustable with the trim.
This is a large plane, why not use smaller twin motors and props for safety, contra rotate for no torque reaction and more efficient.
Have fun
-
1
-
2
-
3
of 3 Next